HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil September 13 20051
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
September 13, 2005
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
None
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, introduced Lori Daddio, the new
Executive Assistance to Pete Kremen.
MINUTES CONSENT
Brenner moved to approve Minutes Consent items one through four.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 26, 2005
2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR AUGUST 9, 2005
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JULY 26, 2005
4. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR AUGUST 9, 2005
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Tim Paxton, Clean Water Alliance, stated the County Council approved a
Sudden Valley urban growth area (UGA) amendment in 2001. Sudden Valley board
members are moving to become a city. A city in Sudden Valley is beyond the
control of the County. Such a city would be able to upzone, build, and construct in
the reservoir. Rescind the UGA ordinance. There is a lot of evidence that the
reservoir is failing. It's becoming urgent for people to develop out there. Such a
city can develop a lot of housing. When it runs out of tax money, it could return
responsibility to the County and City of Bellingham.
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated the Sudden Valley Community
Association is reporting tonight to Sudden Valley Board of Directors. The City of
Sudden Valley Committee recommends to the board to initiate the process for
Sudden Valley to become a city. Put a wooden stake put through this attempt.
At the last meeting, the Council passed a revised land clearing ordinance. It
contained an exception for homes under 2,500 square feet. That is not in keeping
with the County's watershed goals, plans, purposes, or even the need for affordable
housing in this community. Silver Beach residents showed what happens on lots of
those size. One could clear cut a lot that is 4,500 square feet. Now, they're razing
Silver Beach homes to put in these mega boxes.
An affordable house is 1,500 square feet, maximum. Watershed cooperative
management can only be done one way, as a combined district with the City, Water
District, and Fire District. Construct a watershed district.
Crawford asked if the Sudden Valley Board wants to become a city. Jones
stated they will acknowledge it, but won't fund it at this time. They will go for a
city in 2006. He would like an alternative district created.
Russell Weston, 2223 Cody Evan, Bellingham, stated he is the Whatcom
County Grange Deputy for Washington State. Regarding the ordinance amending
the official Whatcom County Zoning Code, Chapter 20.80.800 — Livestock
Regulations (AB2005 -316), it's not necessary to stipulate the number of animals
allowed on ten acres or less. There are already regulations for animal abuse and
nuisance situations. Repeal the ordinance. Allowing the use on a small farm will
help the agricultural industry and 4H students.
Larry Helm, 2660 East 41st Terrace, stated he agreed with the previous
speaker regarding the ordinance amending the official Whatcom County
Zoning Code, Chapter 20.80.800 — Livestock Regulations (AB2005 -316).
There are many 4H and Future Farmers of America (FFA) projects on small
acreages in this county. This ordinance will run a lot of kids out of the program.
Repeal the ordinance. There are already other laws to take care of the issues.
Diana Dawn, P.O. Box 4433, Bellingham, stated they all need to learn what is
happening on the planet. If they continue to build on watershed and critical areas,
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
there could be the same or greater destruction than what has happened with
Hurricane Katrina. Learn from history.
She is the president of 4H, which gives children the opportunity to become
responsible, healthy, and aware adults. There are not that many things for children
in the community to help them become responsible young adults.
She asked where is the accountability regarding the Padden Creek building
that is not up to code. She asked what it teaches the young children when they
pass an ordinance and then break it. The County Council and City Council should
begin to be honest human beings. If they pass an ordinance, then obey it.
John Hymas, 1316 - 23rd Street, stated permit allocations are sometimes
called metering. He is concerned about the frightening rate of projects that are
being vested by the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County before the
Comprehensive Plan and the Critical Area Ordinance are passed. A land rush is
going on. A permit allocation program works in cities around the country. Look
into this.
The subject of Sudden Valley has come up. He is a certified arborist that
does a lot of tree consultation in the county. He is amazed at what is happening on
some of the slopes. Tree removal for the house footprint is one thing, but there is
a need for more training for heavy equipment operators and developers. Large
trees are being damaged unnecessarily.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, stated do not allow a city in the
Lake Whatcom watershed. It's not rational, reasonable, or proper to put a city in
the watershed. The County Council must take action to stop the development of
that area. Only a few property owners, builders, and developers would benefit.
Right now, it means big bucks for them. However, it passes the buck to future
generations, who will have to respond to and clean up the mess. A city in the Lake
Whatcom watershed is simply wrong.
Richard Roebuck, 8288 Northwood, Everson, stated the ordinance
amending the official Whatcom County Zoning Code, Chapter 20.80.800 —
Livestock Regulations (AB2005 -316) would hurt 4H and FAA programs.
Children would not be able to participate in 4H and FFA programs.
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee on the
ordinance amending the official Whatcom County Zoning Code, Chapter
20.80.800 — Livestock Regulations (AB2005 -316). The committee
recommends that the ordinance be remanded back to the Planning Commission to
consider repeal. Staff and committee members agree that it's appropriate to begin
discussion of remanding the ordinance. If the County Council is not ready to
remand the ordinance back to the Planning Commission, then the committee
recommends holding the ordinance in committee for two weeks. The committee
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
would like that time to give people an idea of why the committee recommends
repeal.
Since the original ordinance was passed, a number of other ordinances have
been written that deal with the same issue. The question now is whether the
livestock ordinance is even necessary anymore.
Tony Torretta, 3770 Aldergrove Road, Ferndale, stated he is an agriculture
advisor in a local high school. The ordinance amending the official Whatcom
County Zoning Code, Chapter 20.80.800 — Livestock Regulations (AB2005-
316) would negatively effect those students. They work hard to find agricultural
land for projects in the community. There are issues of losing agricultural land to
residential development. The students are very concerned what will happen to
their livestock. From 1992 to 1997, Whatcom County lost 11 percent of its
agricultural land. According to statistics, all Whatcom County agricultural land will
be gone in 50 years. A total of $240 million is produced on those agricultural lands.
That amount is multiplied four to seven times in the communities. That production
is higher than what a home would produce on that same land. Encourage the
people who are preserving hobby farmland. Repeal the livestock ordinance.
OTHER BUSINESS
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
CODE, CHAPTER 20.80.800 — LIVESTOCK REGULATIONS (AB2005-
316)
Brenner stated she wants to rescind the ordinance. The Planning
Commission is already overloaded. A remand would send it back to them to review
it in a different way. She respects the Planning Commission, but the Council could
hold a hearing itself. She would like to have a hearing and then make a decision.
Roy stated that she agrees with Councilmember Brenner. The Planning
Commission will feel obligated to fine -tune the ordinance and send it back to the
County Council. The question is whether Whatcom County really needs this
ordinance at all.
Fleetwood stated the Planning Commission was never asked about the option
of repealing the ordinance. The Planning Commission is not necessarily set in its
decision. He proposes a remand so that everyone is considered.
Crawford stated he is not in favor of reviewing the ordinance at the Council
level. It should go back to the Planning Commission. Come up with a proposal that
people can understand, without leaving the old law on the books.
Nelson stated the original ordinance was because there was not any
protection in place. Staff needed a tool to prevent small hobby farms from
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
affecting critical areas. Now, farm plans are required. If this is remanded to the
Planning Commission, the question is what the commission would review. The
question is whether there are already ordinances that address the issues.
Brenner stated staff said today that this might be an ordinance whose time
has come and gone. The issues are covered in other ordinances. This ordinance
does not deal with best management practices. It is only a "one size fits all"
solution dealing with animal units, which may or may not have anything to do with
best management practices. The Planning Commission has a lot on its plate. It's
true that rescinding the ordinance was not what the Planning Commission dealt
with. However, the Planning Commission made the ordinance more stringent
instead of just scrubbing it. Along the line, someone said that it doesn't work. Free
up the Planning Commission to work on other issues.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the ordinance
has gone through the system. The Planning Commission added to and subtracted
from the ordinance.
Nelson asked if staff agrees that the necessary protections for the small lots
in the community exist elsewhere. Hart stated he wasn't present for the
committee's discussion.
McShane stated he supports sending the ordinance back to the Planning
Commission, because it was a major deviation from the original intention to scrub
the ordinance. The scrub was to provide clarity to staff, who responds to
complaints about animals. There may be other regulations to cover the issues,
making this ordinance unnecessary, but they don't know for sure. The Council
could do that evaluation itself, but they have a Planning Commission to have that
extra layer of review. There is no rush on it.
Crawford stated the origin of the proposed change was from the enforcement
staff, who tried to make it easier.
Amy Pederson, Planning, stated the Planning Commission was originally
tasked to do a code scrub. The language was not clear enough for staff. The staff
wanted the language improved. The possibility of striking the language altogether
was not even considered. It was not in the scope of the Planning Commission's
task. After this afternoon's discussion, repeal became a possibility. The thought
was to send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission to identify whether or
not there are other ordinances that adequately address complaints. If there are,
they can determine whether or not it is feasible to repeal the ordinance.
Fleetwood moved to remand the ordinance back to the Planning
Commission to consider the question of whether it is appropriate to repeal
Whatcom County Code 20.80.800, the livestock section. The object is to establish
an orderly means to consider this question. Remanding to the Planning
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Commission is one means. It is appropriate. The Council is open to considering
repeal, which is what people want.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of remanding the ordinance to the
Planning Commission. There is a group of people who supported the stricter
measures. They tried to write this ordinance to address problems in Kendall, but
they may not have considered that this ordinance applies countywide. If there is a
particular issue with enforcement and problems in Kendall, get at it another way.
Brenner stated nuisance laws are on the books. If there is a genuine
nuisance problem, it's a civil matter. Keep the County out of it. If there is a public
health issue, public health laws are on the books. Those kinds of issues are already
covered. Anyone raising livestock must adhere to best management practices.
Nelson stated he is ready to repeal the ordinance now. Over the years, he's
seen enough evidence in the regulations to protect property and the functional use
of land in the rural areas for agriculture. He's never liked this section of the code.
It's too hard to interpret and evaluate.
McShane stated that since the repeal is to a section in Title 20, it has to go to
the Planning Commission in the process for making amendments to the zoning text.
The Council would not be able to docket the item until the end of next June.
Crawford asked what ordinance would address an issue of 100 cows on a
one - quarter acre lot.
Nelson stated the farm would have to have a farm plan, which would not
allow that density of livestock.
Brenner stated there are nuisance and feed lot ordinances. One hundred
cows on a one - quarter acre lot would be considered a feed lot. Farms still have to
have best management practices, which considers whether or not the farm is a
nuisance. If the farm is not allowed to operate in a way that is safe for the
environment and public health, it wouldn't be allowed to operate.
She doesn't understand why this has to go through the Planning Commission
again. It's already been to the Planning Commission, and was forwarded to the
Council. The Council is changing what the Planning Commission wanted to do. By
law, the only thing they have to do is have a public hearing.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they are taking a large section of the code and
deleting it. That is an enormous change.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner stated the section of the code is not that big.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion to remand with conditions carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
CONSENT AGENDA
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through eight and ten through 15.
Item nine was referred to the Council Public Works and Safety Committee.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through eight and ten
through 15 carried unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ACCEPT GRANT
FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF THE TERRELL CREEK HERON
COLONY PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $49,000 (AB2005 -342)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM
COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF WHATCOM COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DEFINING THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM A ONE -
TENTH OF ONE PERCENT SALES TAX INITIATIVE FOR COUNTYWIDE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (AB2005 -343)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO
CONTRACT AMENDMENT #2 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
EBENAL GENERAL FOR CENTRAL SHOP ALTERATIONS FOR
INSTALLATION OF FIRE WALL SEPARATION, PAVING, PROX CARD
READER INSTALLATIONS, LOCKSETS REPLACEMENT, MODIFICATION
OF LEVER HANDLE GUARD, AND EXTENSION OF ORIGINAL
CONTRACT EXPIRATION DATE AND COSTS AND TIME IMPACTS IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $41,484.59 PLUS TAX, FOR A TOTAL
AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $280,214.59 PLUS TAX (AB2005-
344)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND THE WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION FOR THE TERM
OF JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2007, WHICH
REPLACES CONTRACT #200212018 (AB2005 -345)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF 15 LAPTOP COMPUTERS AND RELATED ACCESSORIES
FOR USE IN SHERIFF VEHICLES, FROM VENDOR DAYTECH, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $81,258.67 (AB2005 -346)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #05-
71 TO THE SOLE RESPONSIVE BIDDER, SMITH'S DETECTION, FOR A
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
PORTABLE HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL IDENTIFIER, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$44,703.38 (AB2005 -347)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #05-
73 TO THE SOLE RESPONSIVE BIDDER, SAHLBERG EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, FOR A SINGLE AXLE TRUCK WITH AN ASPHALT POTHOLE
PATCH UNIT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,939.47 (AB2005 -348)
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #05-
74 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, VALLEY FREIGHTLINER,
FOR A 5 -YARD DUMP TRUCK WITH A SANDING UNIT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $120,667.86 (AB2005 -349)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND
REUSE WORKS TO FACILITATE A REDUCTION IN THE VOLUME OF
WHITE GOODS IN THE WASTE STREAM AND SUBSEQUENT
REFURBISHMENT OF THOSE ITEMS FOR REUSE, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$25,000 (AB2005 -350)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES TO
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR OUTREACH LINKAGE, VACCINES FOR
CHILDREN, INTERPRETER SERVICES, MEDICAID CLIENT OUTREACH
AND ABCD DENTAL PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $550,000
(AB2005 -351)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WESTERN
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND
ECONOMICS, SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER TO DEVELOP
A 5 -YEAR COMMUNITY PHYSICIAN RECRUITMENT PLAN WITH
WHATCOM ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH CARE ACCESS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$35,000, WITH $40,000 BEING DONATED BY ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL,
FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $75,000 (AB2005 -352)
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE LATIMORE
COMPANY, LLC TO CONDUCT AN ANALYSIS THAT WILL FIND WAYS
TO IMPROVE THE PREDICTABILITY, EFFICIENCY AND
COLLABORATION OF THE COUNTY'S PERMIT PROCESS, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $25,000 (AB2005 -353)
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND OLYMPIC SECURITY
SERVICES, INC. FOR SECURITY SCREENING SERVICES IN THE
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COURTHOUSE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $128,500
(AB2005 -354)
14. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER A PURCHASE
AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND J. LOCH
TRIMINGHAM TO PURCHASE PARCELS 380430 523021 0000, 380430
540021 0000, AND 380430 560021 0000, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$500,000 PLUS EXPENSES (AB2005 -355)
15. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY
NEGOTIATION TO WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, REQ. #01 -05
(AB2005 -356)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL BY THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COUNCIL TO PROVIDE FOR SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS
OF THE COUNTY A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING A LOCAL SALES AND
USE TAX OF ONE -TENTH OF ONE PERCENT AS ALLOWED UNDER RCW
82.14.450, WITH TWO- THIRDS OF THE PROCEEDS TO BE USED FOR
FUNDING COUNTYWIDE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND ONE -
THIRD OF THE PROCEEDS TO BE USED FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
PURPOSES (AB2005 -336)
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to approve the resolution.
Fleetwood asked whether a committee is ready to go to campaign for this
proposition.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated there is.
Nelson stated the money could only be used for emergency management
and criminal justice, as required by law. He asked if a separate fund is required.
Desler stated the emergency medical services (EMS) fund is defined in the plan. All
of those funds would go into an EMS fund that the County would create. The
criminal justice funds would go into the general fund, but they have to account for
the new expenditures to the State auditor.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP FROM SUBURBAN ENCLAVE /RR2 TO PUBLIC RECREATION /ROS
FOR APPROXIMATELY 47 ACRES WITHIN THE CHUCKANUT -LAKE
SAMISH SUBAREA (AB2005 -084A) (PLEASE NOTE — THIS ITEM WAS
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
PREVIOUSLY NUMBERED INCORRECTLY AS AB2005 -335; THE
CORRECT NUMBER IS AB2005 -084A)
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and
moved to send the item forward to the concurrency public hearing.
Brenner stated this is public land already. It's not private property.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Nelson opposed.
3. APPOINTMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMMUNITY NETWORK,
APPLICANTS: KAREN HOLMES, HEATHER SHEPHERD (AB2005 -335)
Fleetwood moved to appoint Karen Holmes and Heather Shepherd.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. APPOINTMENT TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY HORTICULTURAL PEST
AND DISEASE BOARD, APPLICANT: ADAM ENFIELD (AB2005- 364)
Brenner moved to appoint Adam Enfield.
Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CRITICAL
AREAS ORDINANCE, WCC CHAPTER 16.16 — CRITICAL AREAS AND
ASSOCIATED PROVISIONS OF WCC TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2.33, AND
WCC TITLE 20 (AB2005 -226)
Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Tom Pratum, 2241 Northshore Road, stated he thanked the councilmembers
and staff members for their hard work. He has a few issues with the Council in
regards to the ordinance. Most issues are in his previous letters to the Council.
One issue is with allowing of the view corridor to be maintained in perpetuity to be
an exempt activity. It's possible that critical areas could be destroyed over time.
They are making a view that didn't exist before. He encourages the Council to
adopt the ordinance, but he doesn't want it to become too permissive.
Britta Eschete, 1302 Skagit Street, Mt. Vernon, People for Puget Sound,
submitted information (on file). She described her organization. She supports the
adoption of the ordinance. It provides a fair and reasonable approach to allow local
jobs and housing growth to continue, while protecting Puget Sound water quality,
forage fish spawning habitat, and other natural shoreline characteristics. She
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
supports the protections in the ordinance for streams, wetlands, and flood plains.
This ordinance will help save marine resources for future generations.
Robyn duPre', RESources for Sustainable Communities Executive Director,
stated she is a member of the citizens advisory committee that worked through the
critical areas ordinance. She is happy to see it come forward. It has had extensive
public process and is one of the best reviewed ordinances ever in Whatcom County.
The ordinance is the result of rigorous technical review. The County's staff and a
technical advisory committee that included a variety of agencies reviewed the
ordinance. She described the citizen advisory committee. The ordinance allows
reasonable use of the land while protecting important natural assets upon which
they all depend. She encourages the Council to adopt the ordinance.
Wendy Steffensen, North Sound Bay Keeper, stated she was a member of
the citizens advisory committee that spent almost a year reviewing this draft. The
ordinance now is not what a conservationist would want, but it is flexible. The
flexibility concerns her. They will have to trust the County staff to hold the line and
enforce the ordinance, because so much flexibility has been built into it. This is the
compromise the stakeholders have come up with. Adopt the ordinance.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association Governmental Affairs,
submitted and read from her testimony (on file). She is disappointed no review of
the fiscal impact has been made. They need clarification on certain points in the
ordinance. First, a concern is the definition of land use intensities. The Department
of Ecology document is only a guideline. An objection to land use intensities is
equity. It is not equitable that a small development is not the same as the Bellis
Fair parking lot. She questions how intensities will be reconciled with Growth
Management Act (GMA) housing requirements. Define high density as four to six
units per acre, which is similar to the GMA definition of density. If that fails, then
land use intensities should be based on impervious surface, which is in line with
other ordinances. The community can work together to refine the ordinance.
Dan Warner, 3854 Squalicum Lake Road, Pro - Whatcom Chairman, stated he
has an issue with hobby farms. The technical administrator shall have the authority
to increase the width of a habitat conservation area on a hobby farm on a case -by-
case basis. The hobby farm is only affected when near a stream. The Whatcom
Conservation District provides free assistance to farmers and hobby farmers on how
to operate the farm. Pro - Whatcom generally thinks this ordinance is good. Tonight
is an opportunity to affect what will happen to the County for the next generation.
Larry Helm, 2660 East 41St Terrace, stated he is working within the process
and is very happy with all of the changes. Staff has made economic considerations
for the small farmer. However, the document excludes the Natural Resource
Conservation Service standards from the requirements. Nationwide, that is the
benchmark everyone uses. Make sure people at the Natural Resource Conservation
Service are okay with this document.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Richard Baila, 1303 East Maplewood, stated he doesn't feel the ordinance is
in proper balance. Balance the rights and responsibilities of the community with
the rights and responsibilities of the individual property owners and taxpayers.
How this is done will influence voters and legislators. The critical areas ordinance is
extreme. Don't adopt it as written.
Rich Hackett, 3103 Loomis Trail Road, Custer, stated he is a small land
owner. Take a look at dry streams. Dakota Creek has water in it for only short
periods of time.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated there will be some consequences for
small farmers. Make sure the rural rules apply to those small farms. He asked why
a farm community can get by with narrow grass buffer when small property owners
must have large setbacks. There is inconsistency, especially with the class four
wetlands, which will have an impact on the buildable land supply.
Hudson Dodd, Conservation Northwest, 1208 Bay Street, Bellingham, stated
he supports the Whatcom County critical areas ordinance. He described his
organization. Whatcom County is the last county in Western Washington to retain a
nature wildlife and citizens who recognize the value of wildlife. Homes are not
being built in harm's way. Risk of future loss of life due to landslides is decreasing.
The County is reducing flood risk by allowing the force of floods to dissipate over
natural flood plains. The County rates wetlands according to function. However,
the rules for wetland, wildlife corridors, tree retention, and protection of water
quality need improvement. Choose the sensible path and hold firm. Wetlands,
water quality, and wildlife must be protected. Adopt the ordinance.
Jim Johann, 1405 E. Illinois Street, Bellingham, submitted information (on
file) and stated the ordinance has serious constitutional problems. He has a
problem with the part of the critical areas ordinance that says people must trust
County staff. That is against the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions. The
proposed critical areas ordinance states the technical administrator must provide
reasonable notice to enter the property. The CAO does not say they shall not
invade property. The ordinance must say that County staff will not invade private
property without a warrant.
John Lesow, 317 Madrona Place, Point Roberts, submitted information (on
file) and stated he supports the critical areas ordinance generally. Article Three,
Geographical Areas, item f should apply to properties that are beside and below the
parcel being altered on a slope. On item h, shorten the text to the first sentence
only. The last sentence could be interpreted to allow gunnite and retaining walls on
a slope, which can eliminate the necessary function of feeder bluffs to provide sand
for beaches.
They live in an area with frequent landslides, even in dry weather. The
County has legal liability if they don't take great care in permitting the construction
of homes on cliffs. Restrict development in unstable cliff areas.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Bob VanWeerdhuizn, 7026 Noon Road, stated he is in favor of the ordinance.
Stay farm friendly. There are only 154 dairy farms left in Whatcom County. He is
concerned about beaver dams. The beavers have a great habitat to work with now
that buffers are required. However, they can flood a farm overnight. A farmer
should not be fined because of beavers. Farmers do practice best farm
management practices.
Dave Ewoldt, 1811 Eldridge Avenue, Bellingham, stated there are too many
loopholes in the ordinance. Loopholes include judging the importance of a wetland
based on square footage, not limiting impervious surfaces in watersheds, and not
leaving trees on lots to control water runoff and flooding. They need to protect
critical areas. Without a healthy and productive natural environment, they won't be
able to have any development. They simply must not deny what is going on in the
world today. Pay more attention to these crisis. In the near future the entire
biosphere will be a critical area.
Greg Waters, 860 Coho Way #16, stated they are in the middle of one of the
largest development booms they've ever seen. There are not any spare critical
areas. They need to protect them now or lose them forever. Provide wildlife
corridors. Protect all wetlands, which prevent flood damage to homes and lives.
Require a good number of trees left on rural lots and limit impervious surfaces in
the watersheds to replenish aquifers and keep streams and coastal waters clean.
Doug Stark, 2813 Birchwood Avenue, Bellingham, stated his home was
flooded due to the amount of impervious surfaces. He appreciates the value of
wetland buffers for economic and environmental reasons. He recognizes the
importance of buffers. He supports the plan.
Dianna Dawn, P.O. Box 4433, Bellingham, stated she would like to see this
ordinance adopted and carried out. She moved here from Seattle because
Bellingham is like Seattle was when she was a child.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Dawn continued to state that she wants to live with quality people, quality
land, quality water, and quality hearts.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, stated she supports the
ordinance as brought forward. She agrees with the earlier comments of Robyn
duPre' and Wendy Steffensen. Regarding enforcement, look seriously at budget
and staffing to be able to enforce this ordinance. This has a lot to do with water.
There is a difference between flood control and flood hazard management. She
supports flood hazard management. Manage the likelihood and severity of harm
that comes when a flood happens. One can't control a flood. However, one can
plan and make requirements so that things in the way of a flood suffer little harm.
There is a risk of lahar and evulsion of the Nooksack River in the Everson area.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Jason VanderVeen, 1428 East Pole Road, Everson, stated that as a dairy
farmer, he supports this ordinance. It will go a long way in keeping agriculture in
Whatcom County.
Richard Roebuck, 8288 Northwood Road, Everson, stated he supports the
critical areas ordinance. Consider the constitutional rights of the small farmer.
Keep farming going in this community.
Betty Shaw, 4372 Francis Avenue, King Mountain, stated they are in the
middle of a development boom. This is important. Once the animals, water, and
other things are gone, they cannot be replaced. Please enforce the ordinance.
John Hymas, 1316 - 23rd Street, Bellingham, stated he used to earn his
livelihood as a commercial fisherman. Now he is employed in salmon habitat
restoration. There is evidence from the 1400's that laws to preserve salmon have
failed. Salmon runs have been driven to extinction. They may depend on healthy
salmon runs in their future. Ecologically, everything is connected. Nothing kills
salmon species like unregulated development. He supports the ordinance. There is
an ecological limit to growth and development. Determine whether their present
situation is sustainable before the next critical areas ordinance update. Don't refer
to other municipalities for critical areas ordinance guidance or a narrow view of the
Growth Management Act. Listen to good science. Protect stream buffers, aquifers,
steep slopes, lakes, shorelines, farms, and forests. Encourage pervious asphalt and
concrete and beaver deceivers.
Russ Weston, Whatcom County Grange Deputy, stated the ordinance
language suggests it will not impose economic hardships. However, farm plans for
small farms cost nearly as much as farm plans for large farms. Exempt small farms
with less than one animal per acre from farm plans to preserve future farmers and
the longevity of the agricultural community.
Second, update the website with the most current draft. He understands
that the draft they're handing out tonight is not current.
Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, Bellingham, submitted and read from
information (on file) and stated the Council should take comment tonight and hold
over the public hearing. This ordinance will be hard on the small landowner, low -
income homebuilder, and 4H and FHA programs. Regulation without education is a
waste and does not work well. Holding over this hearing will allow others to review
and make comment. Any more proposed changes should be made available to the
public.
Darcy Jones, 4164 Meridian Street #200, Bellingham, submitted information
(on file) and stated he thanked the Council for reviewing his comments. An
environmental impact statement should have been prepared. An inventory of
existing County resources also should have been done. Establish baselines to
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
evaluate cumulative impacts, which is a strong recommendation in the Department
of Ecology (DOE) guidance documents.
Make one change to Whatcom County Code 16.16.275, regarding non-
conforming structures that have been damaged or destroyed. If a home is
damaged, the owner should be able to fix it to the condition it was.
His main concern with the ordinance is regarding the land use intensities.
Best available science does not support the classification of land use intensities.
The sources cited to not establish background for the land use intensities. Instead
of land use intensity, bring these classifications of intensity into compliance with the
Growth Management Act.
Bill Hinely, 2676 Donovan Avenue, Bellingham, stated he thanked the Council
for the work it did. Please enforce the ordinance. He is concerned they are moving
too slowly to protect the global environment. A lot of the troubles can be traced to
human activity. They must get people out of their cars and move into compact
villages. Put the environment first.
Andrea Hood, 3558 Cody Avenue, Bellingham, stated she works at the
Conservation District. The Council should adopt the ordinance. Also provide the
resources to implement and enforce the ordinance. In particular, she's concerned
about conservation planning on agricultural lands (CPAL). It is an improvement
over the old critical areas ordinance. Regulation based on impact is good. The
conservation program has been on the books since 1997. Just because it was on
the books doesn't mean it worked. The Conservation District has not provided free
assistance with farm plans for six months because of lack of funding. The
Washington State Conservation Commission provides funding for high density
feeding operations. Adopt the ordinance, but back it up with resources. Do
proactive public outreach, technical assistance, staffing, staff training, enforcement,
and tracking.
Crawford asked if $3,000 for hobby farm plan sounds accurate. Hood stated
everyone's conservation plans are different.
David Haggith, 5685 Bench Lane, Everson, stated he represents the Dairy
Federation and he was a member of the citizens advisory committee. He worked
with many organizations to get their input and approval.
The key change for agriculture is the change to small farm plans and hobby
farms. In the past, the small farmers didn't step up to get farm plans. In most
instances, a simple map and checklist will suffice. He supports the ordinance as it
stands. The Growth Management Act addresses the economic impacts. The critical
areas ordinance does not. To sustain agriculture, it is critical to address poor
drainage.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Ellen Gray, FutureWise, stated she thanks the Council and staff. The
ordinance is good for the environment and good for the taxpayers. It will save the
taxpayer money. Studies have looked at the value of wetlands for flood protection.
Protecting wetlands for flood protection is a smart and economic thing to do.
Please take enforcement to heart. A position called watershed keeper is funded by
a tax on impervious surface. Those watershed keepers track what is happening in
the watersheds. Work on countywide, consistent stormwater management. Do
more work on the wildlife corridor.
Debbie Vanderveen, 1428 E. Pole Road, stated she strongly supports the
ordinance. It is good for farmers and hobby farmers, 4H, FFA, and the kids.
Roger Almskaar, 3610 Meridian, Land Use Consultant, submitted information
(on file) and stated the current and proposed critical areas ordinances are
complicated because the three levels of government, federal, state, and county,
don't always agree. He moved here to get away from the sprawl. They have to
realize there are costs to preserving the habitat. The real argument is over the low
value habitats and wetlands. He disagrees that the low value wetlands are
valuable. They have little function or value. The ordinance has some good points,
but focus on the intensity categories. He'd never heard of the Department of
Ecology model until he looked at the Whatcom County draft. It is overkill. Housing
costs are up because of excessive and convoluted regulation. Take time and have a
work session on this.
David Murralt, P.O. Box 5327, Bellingham, stated protecting the environment
is important. He has to look at the financial impact on his small business and
employees. Eliminating affordable housing drives service people out into the
county to buy homes that are affordable. In the end, it will cost everyone a lot
more. They shouldn't destroy wetlands, but the Council should take a closer look at
this. He's not sure the financial impact on the community is being acknowledged.
No one has yet said they are uncomfortable with their property values.
Patrick Alesse, Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated there is a relationship
between economics and critical areas. If they take care of the environment, the
environment will take care of them. Live with nature. The ordinance will not make
people pay more for their homes.
Rob Horgen, 611 East Hemmi Road, Lynden, Whatcom County Grange
President, stated growth has affected the areas where most people have come
from. When the value of the production of the land is outpaced by growth, the land
will be developed for other uses. Every time they add another cost to agriculture,
such as the cost of a farm plan, it's another dig at the profit of agriculture.
Consider carefully adding any further costs to agriculture. The Conservation District
might be informative and educational, but he would like kids to have hands -on
experience with animals. Don't take away the opportunity for those children.
Hearing no one else, Caskey- Schreiber closed the public hearing
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy moved to approve the ordinance.
From the memo to the Whatcom County Council from Planning Director Hal Hart
dated September 5, 2005 regarding Proposed Amendments to the July 26, 2005
County Council Recommended County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO):
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.235(J)(4), "...Hydraulic Project
Approval (HPA), if required, from the...." The County is not allowed to require a
hydraulic permit approval. Only the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife is allowed to require it.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Brenner continued to state that the section as written looks as if the County
requires permit approval, whether or not the Department of Fish and Wildlife
requires it. This amendment makes it clear that the County doesn't require the
permit.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.240(D), "...to assure conformance
with this chapter. The Technical Administrator and /or Hearing Examiner shall
render a final decision in accordance with the timelines established in WCC
2.33.090 and WCC 20.92.430, as applicable. All decisions of the Technical
Administrator and Hearing Administrator may be appealed pursuant to WCC
20.84.240 and 20.92.600." Quite a few people were concerned about timeframes.
They felt it would be helpful to list in the ordinance what the timeframes are. This
amendment gives people the reference to locate the timelines.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.250, "E. Upon the applicant's
request, the Technical Administrator shall provide brief written findings of fact to
support the decision made." There was a concern that an applicant would get a
decision with no explanation, which should be done anyway.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford stated that amendment is very good. In his experience,
explanations may not be as elaborate as they should be.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.260(C), "...performance standards
identified in the mitigation plan, or does not provide adequate replacements for the
functions and values of the impacted critical area, eFetherwise =w-af-ants— a�'�e,�a�
nenite ." There isn't any additional monitoring that could be done that isn't
covered beyond the first two monitoring conditions.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.260(F)(2)(e), "...WCC 20.88. The
The
language removed is duplicative.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the motion. It won't hurt to repeat
the statement because they need to pay attention to it. This could result in more
money coming into the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program, which
could bank dollars for other areas.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Caskey- Schreiber, McShane, and Fleetwood
opposed.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.270(A)(2)(b), "...and/or revision of
Fead and/eF lot layout project design;" One could have more than just a lot layout.
The project could be something like a subdivision.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.275(C), "Non- conforming structures
that are destroyed by fire,...." A damaged property may not require a
complete rebuild. Any property that does require a complete rebuild would be
considered destroyed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.275(C)(1), "The reconstruction
process is commenced...." There may be problems with insurance paying off in time
to commence reconstruction in time to meet the deadline. The amendment includes
the process of dealing with the insurance company so that the project is moving
along.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.290(5), "...by a court of competent
jurisdiction. Upon request, the County may provide a sample conservation plan,
exclusive of site- or property- specific information, to give general guidance on the
development of a conservation plan."
Caskey- Schreiber asked if an example plan would be misleading because
each plan is so customized.
Jeff Chalfant, Senior Planner, stated an example plan is appropriate. It
wouldn't provide any property details. It could just be a sample plan that shows a
list of best management practices (BMP's) that could be employed.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.610(E)(1), "The wetland does not
provide significant suitable breeding habitat for native amphibian species...." This
amendment makes it more specific about what they really want to protect.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.630(C)(1), "The standard buffer shall
be based on the intensity of the adjacent proposed land use and the functions and
values...." This amendment changes the language to what it was supposed to be in
the first place.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Crawford stated they're talking about the wetland. The land use they're
talking about is adjacent to the wetland.
Brenner stated the next item in the memo is a scrivener's error in WCC
16.16.710(A).
Brenner moved to amend Article 8 - Definitions, "Buffer (the buffer zone)"
means the vegetated area adjacent...." There are areas such as geologically
hazardous areas with an adjacent area that may not be vegetated.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend Article 8 - Definitions, ° 'Watershed"
means... Frasier River, Samish River, Coastal)." This amendment will be important to
anyone who is working in the basin. She asked that all four basins be included.
Motion carried unanimously.
From the memo to the Whatcom County Council from Planning Director Hal Hart
dated September 12, 2005 regarding Proposed Amendments to the July 26, 2005
County Council Recommended County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO):
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.100, "(F) Consistent with Whatcom
County's high standard of staff conduct, County staff observe all applicable Federal
and Washington laws regarding entry onto privately owned property." This is in
response to testimony about trespass laws. It acknowledges that staff obeys all
laws regarding entry onto private property.
McShane stated he is curious about what this has to do with purpose and
intent. Chalfant stated he had a hard time finding the right location for this
language.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.235, "...Notification shall be
submitted to the Technical Administrator at least ten (10) full business days prior to
initiating work. Unless otherwise specified, notification shall be valid for one year
per activity provided that there is no change in the scope of the project including,
but not limited to, the location and /or extent of the activity allowed under the
notification process. Upon receipt of the notification...." This was originally intended
to give notice. As long as the person stays within the project scope, it is allowed
after ten days of notification.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.235 to add language at the end of
the section, "View areas established under this section shall be considered lawfully
established and may be maintained as provided for in 16.16.230.6." Once there is a
lawfully established view area, the property owner may prune and maintain it
according to the code referenced. That was the intent all along.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.260(6)(3), "The mitigation plan shall
be prepared by a qualified professional, provided that the Technical Administrator
may waive the requirement to hire a qualified professional to prepare a mitigation
plan when the required mitigation involves standard planting or enhancement
practices. The waiver shall not be granted for mitigation practices involving wetland
creation, rehabilitation, and /or restoration. (4) The mitigation plan ate shall contain
the following information: a. A description and scaled drawings...."
McShane asked for an example of a circumstance where that might happen.
Chalfant stated one instance would be when there is a buffer encroachment that
required mitigation that involves reestablishing the riparian corridor through just
planting trees.
McShane stated he hopes the amendment doesn't cause people to be
unrealistically optimistic about how easy it could be to do mitigation. Chalfant
stated that is the reason for the second sentence included in the amendment. Also,
it depends on staff availability. Staff may waive the requirement, but doesn't have
to if there are no staff resources to help someone with the project.
Nelson stated he is concerned that mitigation plans would have adverse
effects on other property owners. Just because an evaluation is required, a
neighboring property owner is not assured that the mitigation plan won't encroach
onto the neighboring property.
Motion carried unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Margaret Clancy, Adolfson Associates, stated that if the concern is regarding
implications of a buffer impacting an adjoining property, language is in the code that
says mitigation activities cannot create a buffer encumbrance on an adjacent
property. This language about the effects of mitigation on adjoining properties has
to do with things like placing hard woody debris in a stream affecting hydrologic
processes. Impacts have to be disclosed, evaluated, and addressed in the
mitigation plan.
Crawford asked if mitigation to move a wetland closer to the edge of the
property, thereby creating the need for a buffer for the neighbor, is precluded.
Clancy stated it is precluded.
Nelson asked what happens if there is an effect to the neighboring property
in five years or so which creates the need for a buffer. Clancy stated the neighbor
won't be affected by a buffer. One can't create a wetland close enough to the
property line so that the required buffer would extend onto the neighboring
property. In a case where that wetland location would be ideal except for the buffer
encumbrance, the County has authority to approve a lesser buffer on the mitigation
site to prevent the buffer from extending onto the neighboring property.
Nelson asked if the property owner would have to have a buffer that's large
enough to address wetland runoff. Clancy stated there generally isn't runoff from
the wetland. They have to address the effects of runoff from the property
development through the stormwater provisions.
Nelson asked for the code citation that prohibits a property owner from
changing the wetland structure so that the new drainage pattern creates a wetland
in the neighboring yard. He's seen that happen before, and it was legal.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they would continue with the amendments while
staff finds the correct citation.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.620(H), "Stormwater management
facilities, limited to detention /retention /treatment ponds...." Stormwater
management facilities are also about retention, as well as detention. There is a
slight difference between the two.
Motion carried unanimously.
Roy stated her problem with subsection WCC 16.16.260(b)(4)(g) is that the
language sounds too wishy- washy. Requiring an evaluation of impacts doesn't mean
impacts are prohibited. It just means the impacts are looked at. There must be
some sort of language on how to address the impacts.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 16.16.260(B)(4)(g), "...to address such
impacts. Mitigation projects shall not result in adverse impacts to adjacent property
owners."
Crawford asked if the amendment would prohibit a property owner with three
adjacent parcels from doing anything on one parcel that would affect the other
parcels.
Brenner stated it would not. The language specifies adjacent property
owners.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson asked for clarification on the definition of a wetland. He asked if
wetlands are defined to support a certain type of vegetation. Chalfant stated they
are.
Nelson asked why section 16.16.630 says that buffer standards may be
increased when the buffer lacks adequate vegetation. Chalfant stated that section
has to do with the wetland buffer, not the wetland itself. The wetland itself has to
support the vegetation, but the buffer may not have vegetation.
Clancy stated the wetland has to meet the criteria for soils, vegetation, and
hydrology. The buffer adjacent to the wetland does not have to meet those same
criteria.
Crawford stated this regulation goes too far in terms of mitigation ratios. A
150 -foot buffer on a class III wetland is not practical. Category IV wetlands
shouldn't be identified. They need to question the overall function of a category IV
wetland to begin with. They may be able to become buildable parcels with no
mitigation. There is quite a bit of concern regarding the authority given to the
Technical Administrator, including private property search. There needs to be more
specific restraint on how far the Technical Administrator can go. Because of these
concerns, he will vote against the ordinance.
Brenner stated some of those concerns were solved by the amendments just
approved, including wording about search and seizure with a warrant. It covers
any possibility of illegal trespass.
The Technical Administrator will be a qualified staff. The ordinance provides
much flexibility for the applicant and Technical Administrator to work out
something. There is now an appeal process to the Planning and Development
Services Director, which avoids spending a lot of money on the appeal process if it
can be handled at that level.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The person with a problem on his farm went through this ordinance and said
this ordinance would have been better than the old ordinance. The person supports
this new ordinance.
Someone testified that no one complains when their property values go up.
Her property values go up and she complains because her taxes go up, too. That
concern is only an issue when someone wants to sell a property. Ninety -nine
percent of those issues have to do with the way someone's property is assessed.
The main result of people who move to the area and pay top dollar for housing is
higher assessments for everyone. The County doesn't have control over that.
These rules will provide clarity and predictability for everyone. The Planning
Department will have to budget for more staff, but this is one of the best pieces of
legislation she's worked on. She thanked staff and the contractor for their hard
work.
Crawford stated they must also thank Councilmember Brenner for her hard
work, even though he differs from her philosophically.
McShane stated many people worked hard on this, including people in the
community. There is impact from runoff as development occurs and as wetlands
get filled in. Category IV wetlands may have little function, but they help buffer
severe flooding events. The frequency of damaging flooding and erosion is
lessened if they take care of the storage capacity, as small as it may be. The
storage capacity is accumulative. Protect them as much as they can.
Nelson stated he would vote against the ordinance. He has fundamental
differences with the wetland identification, particularly class IV wetlands and
agricultural practices. However, the Council worked diligently on this ordinance for
a long time. He appreciated the Council who considered the public's issues.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she thanked the public for sharing their viewpoints
on the ordinance. It helps the process.
Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried 5 -2 with Nelson
and Crawford opposed.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items. Item eight is withdrawn
from the agenda.
Motion carried unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1. RECEIPT OF REQUEST FROM JOHN COX, JONES ENGINEERS, FOR
EXTENSION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF GOVERNOR
ROAD PHASE II (AB2005 -363)
2. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION TO
WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, REQ. #01 -05 (AB2005 -356A)
(HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2005 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
REQUEST #9, IN THE AMOUNT OF $397,705 (AB2005 -358)
4. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR MANDATORY ARBITRATION
TO OFFSET THE COST OF THE PROGRAM (AB2005 -359) (HEARING TO
BE SCHEDULED)
S. ORDINANCE TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM
COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 20.97 — DEFINITIONS AND
20.40.250 — MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND LAND SUBDIVISION (AB2005-
360)
6. ORDINANCE GRANTING A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO LAKE
WHATCOM WATER & SEWER DISTRICT (AB2005 -361) (HEARING TO
BE SCHEDULED)
7. ORDINANCE GRANTING A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO THE
HILLTOP WATER OWNERS ASSOCIATION (AB2005 -362) (HEARING
TO BE SCHEDULED)
8. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION
ON A PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR CHERRY
POINT URBAN GROWTH AREA EXPANSION (TERASEN PIPELINES)
(AB2005 -084B)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
There were no reports or other items.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on September 27 , 2005.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 9/13/2005, Page 25